Peter Raynor Barcelona October 2016

‘What works’ What goes wrong What else might also work ‘Good lives’, restorative justice, desistance Individual supervision and support ‘Core correctional practices’ Social contexts of rehabilitation Questions (maybe answers)

When I was a probation officer in the 1970s this is what criminology told us:

‘With few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effects on recidivism’ (Martinson 1974)

‘Penal “treatments”, as we significantly describe them, do not have any reformative effect . . .The dilemma is that a considerable investment has been made in various measures and services . . . Are these services simply to be abandoned on the basis of the accumulated research evidence? Will this challenge evoke a response . . . by the invention of new approaches and new methods?’ (John Croft 1978)

Target risk Focus on criminogenic

need Are structured Use direction Use cognitive-behavioural

methods Are (best) located in the

community

Are delivered with high integrity

Have committed management

Have appropriately trained staff

Have adequate resources Have integral evaluation

‘RNR’ =

▪ RISK

▪ NEED

▪ RESPONSIVITY

Programmes based on RNR can typically reduce

reconviction by 10% or more (Loesel) but often don’t – why not?

(In England and Wales) too much change imposed too fast

Programmes used for the wrong people, leading to attrition

Neglect of case management Probation culture based on practitioner

autonomy (implementation often better in the prisons)

Apparent psychological reductionism Apparent negative focus on deficits Risk assessment criticised as backward-looking

Reductions below predicted levels of re-offending (%): All community orders - 6.7 All programmes - 10.3 All programme completers - 25.8 Short prison sentences - 0.2 (Programme completion rates also improved, until

recent reorganisation, but still many do not complete)

RNR is still the approach with by far the best evidence of effectiveness – many studies show this. However more work is needed on:

Responsivity (particularly for minority groups)

Motivation Positive goals Social support Building pro-social identity

GLM developed by Tony Ward, originally with sex offenders, with a focus on positive goals, strengths and motivation – how to construct a satisfactory life – rather than negative deficits

Originally seen as alternative to RNR

Now widely regarded as compatible or complementary

Limited development of specific methods and research so far

RNR is based on learning theory, i.e. how people change; GLM adds a focus on motivation, why people change

Restorative justice within the criminal justice system: The best recent controlled study was in England – see Restorative Justice in Practice by Shapland, Robinson and Sorsby (Routledge 2011). Key findings were positive and led to changes in the law:

(If there is a ‘conference’ with victim participation:) Reduction in the frequency of offending (though

no reduction in the proportion of offenders reconvicted)

No criminogenic effects Positive learning for offenders, e.g. those who

say it made them think about the harm they had done were less likely to re-offend

But it needs to be well organised and carefully introduced (implementation again)

For persistent offenders, is a process not an event Is multicausal Involves obstacles, mistakes, relapses – ‘a zig-zag

process’ Often requires development of social and individual

‘capital’ Is complete when a non-criminal identity and way of

life are firmly established (‘primary’ becomes ‘secondary’ desistance)

Is facilitated by social bonds to prosocial others, partners, parental responsibility

Often requires access to help and motivation to make use of it

‘In the case of criminal behaviour, factors in the social environment seem influential determinants of initial delinquency for a substantial proportion of offenders . . . but habitual offending is better predicted by looking at an individual’s acquired ways of reacting to common situations’ (Zamble and Quinsey 1997)

Persistent offenders need practical help and changes in thinking

(From a survey of desisting and persisting offenders): the desisting offender had a ‘strong sense that he or she is in control of his or her destiny. Whereas active offenders . . . seemed to have little vision of what the future might hold, desisting interviewees had a plan and were optimistic that they could make it work’.

For some offenders, a positive relationship with a helpful and optimistic person, who believes that they can do well, helps to establish and reinforce a pro-social identity and a sense of value.

Such relationships may be with partners, family members etc. or may be with criminal justice professionals (e.g. probation staff) or mentors.

Managing these relationships well requires skills or (in RNR) ‘core correctional practices’ (CCPs).

Listen, understand, help, challenge, be reliable and consistent.

95 videotaped interviews collected and assessed

14 participating staff

Focus on two areas: skills used, and impact on offending

(For full results see ‘The impact of skills in probation work’, Criminology and Criminal Justice 14 , 2 [2014] 235-249)

Set up S Non-verbal communication N Verbal communication V Use of authority A Motivational interviewing M Pro-social modelling P Problem solving S Cognitive restructuring C Overall interview structure O Total

Substantial

Consistent across a number of interviews (for most officers)

Consistent across different types of interviews (for most officers)

More evident in ‘structuring’ skills (maybe reflecting social work training of the officers: they mostly score well on ‘relationship’ skills)

Based on 75 interviewees with scored interviews and 2-year reconviction follow-up

(When same individual was interviewed more than once, repeat interviews were not counted.)

Two-year reconviction rates of people interviewed by 7 staff with below-median skill ratings, compared with interviewees of 7 staff with above-median skill ratings (N of staff = 14; N of interviewees = 75)

Interviewed by: Not reconvicted Reconvicted % reconvicted Staff using fewer skills 15 21 58% Staff using more skills 29 10 26% p= .004

1 year 2 years Set up .019 .078 Non-verbal communication .093 .330 **

Verbal communication .160 .263 *

Use of authority .147 .169

Motivational interviewing .125 .201 *

Pro-social modelling .195 * .094

Problem solving .214 * .254 *

Cognitive restructuring .214 * .173

Overall interview structure .145 .131

Total .230 * .272 **

Officers in Jersey asked to be trained to use the checklist and manual

Now officers regularly videotape interviews and meet every few months with a colleague to use the research checklist to assess and discuss the interviews

Also being tried in other countries

Evidence-based practice works best if practitioners understand it and believe that it will help them do their work better

And if criminal justice agencies value, support, train and listen to their staff (promoting a ‘culture of curiosity’)

And if wider society promotes social rights, social welfare and equal opportunity

Peter Raynor p.raynor@swansea.ac.uk